Close Topic Options

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? - Page 6

I'll accept that the very existence of humans *contributes* to global changes of many kinds, but we are not the entire cause of ALL of it, nor do I believe even a significant part. Yes, there is some evidence to suggest global warming is occurring, but there is also evidence to suggest the opposite, as well as evidence that this may be a *normal* earth cycle of warming and cooling that has happened over many thousands of years.

I'm not saying, and have never said, that we should just go on being the gluttonous, self-satisfying, polluting generation that currently exists. I'm not "pro-industry" or whatever.

What I'm saying is that the scare-tactic screaming from the melting glacier tops by these extreme environmentalists isn't always true, and it behooves us as intelligent, responsible human beings to verify by our own research these claims -- including claims to the contrary -- before we join the parade.

Offtopic but, Wasn't it abrupt climate change that began the Ice Age? Isn't there evidence that woolly mammoths literally froze in their tracks? What did that abrupt climate change have to do with humans?

Man-made Natural Warming Global

Leading international scientists are the ones sending out the warnings. It's not greenpeace and the usual left-wing enviromentalists who are doing the research.

Global warming is occuring, even those who deny human involvement have now accepted this. The majority of climate scientists believe human activity is playing a significant enough role to warn us to change our behaviour. The reputable scientists are the ones who seem to crow loudest.

I'm not an expert on this topic, but there are so many scientists who are and know a hell of a lot more than anyone on this discussion board about global warming and its causes. They are the people who I listen too.

When you look at science it is important to consider what is behind a scientific report or assessment. Are certain scientists being sponsored to prove or disprove something and by who?

Regardless of the extent of human cause, which I agree hasn't been verified to 100 per cent certanty, we are still being warned that global warming is having dire consequences on the earth. My attitude is why not start making these steps. Large powerful multi-nationals who are only driven by money are the ones who are trying to prevent this. I don't see why it is such a bitg deal that they should invest in technology or take steps to refine their polluting ways. The same applies for the rest of society. A few small steps can make a big difference, what is the big deal with doing this?

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? History & Civil Business Politics

You know that I disagree with all the hysterical claims. Yes, things change. Perhaps there is significant global warming. However, it is NOT proven. Nor is there strong evidence one way or the other. There are a lot of things happening that correlate to the idea of global warming. However, the hysterical claims of so-called scientists are just that - hysterical.

Arvhic, you made mention of groups of scientists who all agree that Global Warming is a FACT and that humans are the major cause of it.

So, what kind of scientist ARE these? Are they climatologists, the people who actually know about climate? Or are they biologists, astronomers, physicists, marine biologists, etc?

Here is FACT:
https://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17568
Climatologists Reject Media Claims of Global Warming Consensus

I urge you to read the whole thing. I will try to add more later.

Page 6 Man-made Natural Warming Global

Notice that we went nearly 120 years without having an average global temperature increase, yet nearly a degree in the last 20 years. In fact, temperatures have increased on average every year for the last 20 years. It didn't do so the previous 100 years. Its extremely obvious that humanity is not the ONLY cause of global warming. Volcano's erupting put more junk into the atmosphere at one time than 5 years worth of our pollution. But then, that is not the question.

If there is even a small possibility that humanity is causing global warming to happen at a faster rate than the normal earth cycles do, then isn't it our responsibility as stewards of this planet to slow it down? If you are waiting for ABSOLUTE proof, you won't get it. Why? Because by the time that proof is achieved, it will be to late.

The reason legislation is being passed to stop global warming is because people fail to take measures on their own. Businesses will not spend the money for cleaner burning, and more efficient fuels unless forced to. Being against legislation is fine, but you necessarily have to accept that businesses will not support environment friendly reforms voluntarily, and you necessarily accept that when you have the proof you need to make it mandatory, it will be to late.

Can you truly tell me you are willing to wait that long? Can you say that global warming is not happening and you are willing to stake our childrens future on it? None of the steps being taken end up anything but good in the long run so why are you so against it? Sure we spend a little more now, but in the end, we have cleaner, cheaper, renewable fuel that will sustain up for generations to come! Fighting against global warming doesn't harm you, it makes your air cleaner, your water cleaner, your planet cleaner. Why do you fight against it so much? If you are right, then we are no worse off than before for taking steps. If your wrong, then we go into another ice age and millions die. If you are right, the out come is still cleaner air. If your wrong, its catastrophe. So please, continue on with this argument like you have anything to gain from allowing current ecological conditions to continue. Please remember how much you like the status quo when you breathe in the noxious fumes from the truck in front of you. And please, remember how much you like the greenhouse gases the way they are when you read how studies in Boston and New Hampshire show a consistent increase in asthma and other respiratory illnesses in children over the last 15 years.

You can say I'm wrong. You can argue till your blue in the face. But you are simply arguing against beginning signs of global warming. If the last twenty years of increasing temperature, rising water, melting glaciers, and more respitory illnesses are nothing but happen stance, then you will lose nothing by supporting eco-friendly changes and technology. This is not about being an American, its about a planet that we all live on. Its about the air we all breathe. You can't fault us and look down on people simply because we care about these things, we only want to make it a healthier, cleaner place to live. Whats the harm in that?

Man-made Natural Warming Global

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the peak international body that assesses climate change research. It was established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

This is widely regarded by scientists, government departments and other organisations as a world authority on the subject. It is an independent body that has no interest in promoting either side of this debate.

The IPCC releases a report on climate change and its impact every so often. It is currently preparing a report due to be released in 2007 that tracks climate change for most of this decade. They released a significant report in 2001.

You can find the report and various graphics about climate change and human contribution at IPCC website

Further to Konquerez's graph, which is also on this website, I would like to point out an interesting graph that looks at human contribution to climate change. Human factors contributing to global warmingThis shows how pollution levels, using four different pollutants, have rapidly increased at the same time as global warming during industrialisation and the period leading up to it.

Unless it is a strange coincidence, you can only conclude that pollution is contributing to climate change. The question is how much. It's alarming when you compare how temperature change has followed a similar rise to pollution levels. Of course these pollutants aren't all from human activity, but we know that our activity is certainly having an influence. If we know this, my question is why not try to change that problem?

We cannot control natural climate change or volcanos and other natural pollutants. What we can do is control OUR behaviour. It strikes me as criminal that we know this problem exists but continue to deny it because large multi-nationals want to become larger and richer. That is really what this opposition is about. It's not about science, it's about big business scared of being forced to behave as good corporate citizens. They are scared they might only make a $36.4 billion profit instead of a $36 billion profit. Let's not fool ourselves here, look at who sponsors the major lobby groups opposing global warming theories. The Heartland organisation is one example.

I found this report that shows just what lengths both the US and Australian Governments would go to to try and muzzle respected scientists on climate change. These scientists belong to NASA and the CSIRO, organisations that are highly respected in the field of science and receive government funding. Both these countries are the only two developed nations who have not ratified the treaty.

Edited: arvhic on 27th Apr, 2006 - 12:09pm

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

Here is a report on how good hybrid cars (one of the great hopes of the "green" movement) really are to the environment.

https://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=279460&Category=5
Hybrids" energy, cost savings questioned

I already knew that hybrids are not going to be cost competitive. They lose money for the consumer, as well as for the manufacturer. They have a higher cost to society.

According to this report, a huge gas guzzler, such as a Chevy Suburban, actually has a lower "energy cost per mile" than almost all the hybrids out there.

An excellent story, with great information.

Global Warming Natural Man-made - Page 6

How conceited can humans be? The temperature of the earth is controlled by the sun, ocean currents, the wind, and volcanic eruptions placing dust above our earth to reflect sunlight, to name a few. Have you ever heard of one, or many, humans working together changing the direction of the wind? Or maybe we could all get together and figure a way to change an ocean current, or stop a volcano from blowing its top?

How tiny and insignificant we are. We are but a speck in this universe and we are going to somehow change the weather? I'm reminded of an old saying. "Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it."

And I dare say nobody ever will!

Global Warming Natural Man-made Politics Business Civil & History - Page 6

I think it too simplistic to say humans are so small and insignificant we cannot damage the planet or affect weather patterns.

Look at all the species of animals we have destroyed and the forests we have cut down. What about the ecosystems that our pollution has destroyed? We are easily the most damaging animal on this planet at present.

Our behaviour affects the climate through the dangerous gases we produce and release into the atmosphere. This is proven beyond doubt through scientific research. What is in question is the exact extent of damage. That is where this debate is at the moment.